Understanding Change in the Academy

Abstract

Change—everyone in the academy is in favor of it when it is directed at the improvement of others and other areas. Similarly, we like change for ourselves and in our activities when we believe modifications will cause little inconvenience and bring about a more desirable state of affairs personally and professionally. Post-secondary education is a frequent focus (some would say target) of calls for change both from within and outside of the academy. Since 1983, when the (U.S.) National Commission on Excellence in Education issued the report A Nation at Risk, numerous commissions, agencies, and associations have evaluated higher education in the U.S. and declared that it falls short of many desirable goals and objectives. Even when there is broad agreement on the problems and the need for change in higher education, the “how” often alludes us. As pointed out in the article by Lee and colleagues in this issue, the academy is largely organized around departments which house faculty in specific fields and disciplines. And, departmental “readiness” for change is affected by disciplinary characteristics, the relative strength of basic academic values, the existence of protected subunits or subcultures in the department, departmental leadership, the reward structure, external support, and the general support of undergraduate education. The important life and workplace related learning outcomes of general education (e.g. communication, writing, critical thinking) receive the most criticism. Faculty members tend to think in terms of “courses” and think less so about learning across courses, let alone across the curriculum. General education is the crossroads where we encounter difficulty in setting curricular goals, agreeing on pedagogies, and negotiating the structure for “general” learning; it is the place where consensus and change are so difficult. Disciplinary differences create different views of the world—what is important to know, how one approaches knowing, and what stands as “truth.” While disciplinary diversity and loose coupling of departments and faculty fuel innovation, discovery, and application of knowledge within specific areas, this organizational structure makes fundamental change in undergraduate education and overarching student learning outcomes (i.e., general education) exceedingly difficult. Innov High Educ (2007) 32:1–2 DOI 10.1007/s10755-007-9038-8